i recommend the 24-105 f/4. awesome lens with a zoom range. there are times when i use it that i miss a 2.8, but not as often as i thought. i use this lens more and more as time goes by. it is my go-to lens for just walking around and shooting stuff. i have the 135 f/2 as well and i love that lens, but the fixed focal range is self-limiting. i love the 70-200 f/2.8 but it is a heavy lens and it lacks the wide angles that u want sometimes. get the 24-105 f/4. u will not regret it. it is an L lens so it will cost a few bucks.

by the way, i have the 24-70 and i hardly ever use it any more. i much prefer the 24-105.

The longer I do street photography, the less dogma I have or accept, but this is one I subscribe to. Real street photography is in close.

To the OP question:

I wouldn't use any of the lenses you mention for anything I'd consider "street photography." I have used the 135mm for candid portraits on the street sometime, but I use it mostly at night on the street.

Best, I believe, is anything 35mm to 50mm -- the 40mm "pancake" is great. Some of the best stuff can be done with UWA because it makes you get in close and still retains context. I do like the 24-105 suggestion -- it can make life on the street a lot easier. (The older you get, the more you look for easy!)

Oh, and while we're on the subject, if you don't know this site, you should look at it:

It's not classic street photography, but it's a great and very entertaining variation with great street photography attitude. His story of raising $100K to send kids to summer camp is a great outcome of someone inappropriately using his images.

Sorry, don't mean to hijack the thread, but this is worth a look -- especially for anyone interested in street photography and copyright issues.

I have both the 135 and the 200. Both are excellent and great value really. So it comes down to which focal length you want. I personally would consider the 135 more of a street photography lens - the 200 might be a bit too tight but it depends on what you're intending to do and your style.Can't speak to the macro. I'm certain it's great also and has the added benefit of, well, being a macro lens. I personally would prefer it without the IS.

EvilTed

Seriously, you don't want to scream paparazzi at anyone while doing street, and while you can sit somewhere out of sight with a telephoto, like a sniper waiting for a victim, although you may get what appear to be good candid shots, you are missing out on the main part of the art, which is the interaction with YOU.

If you are new to street photography and you really want to feel it, I'd suggest getting the new 35mm F/2 IS.This will give you great hand held shots with a 5D MK3 due to it's high ISO capability.THE IS will help a lot too.

It can be pretty dangerous sometimes too and you will get challenged by some people, but that's part of the art, having the confidence and the balls to just take the shot...

There's nothing inherently more voyeuristic about using telephoto lenses for street photography as opposed to normal lenses. It's all about intent. How the subject feels about your choice of gear is irrelevant. Being blatant or inconspicuous has nothing to do with gear. No photographic genre places a limit on "acceptable focal lengths." Unfortunately, street photography is riddled with elitist stigmas perpetuated by Leicaphiles and Cartier-Bresson worship.

Landscape photography can only really be taken with a view camera. Ansel Adams demands it.

See how ridiculous it is?

135L is the best telephoto for street, hands down. A case can be made for the 100 f/2 (cheaper, smaller) or 85L (effectively 2 stops faster than the 135). Not so much the 85 1.8.